Failing NHS trust faces £1.5m hit for backing transexual over female nurses

The astronomical outlay - a sum that will be picked up by taxpayers - has been described as “maddening” as it could fully fund a nursing ward for a year.

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy

Experts calculate County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust could be liable for as much as £1.25m as a result of its flunked attempt to protect the rights of a transsexual over women frightened for their safety in a case exposed by the Express and which sparked nationwide anger.

The settlement came after an employment tribunal found the nurses had been victims of unlawful discrimination.

But it has now emerged the trust - whose leadership is rated inadequate - will likely end up coughing up significantly more.

Tory Peer Baroness Davies, a long-standing women’s rights activist, described the case as “maddening”, adding: “People must lose jobs but they are not because of diversity, equity, and inclusion officers and box ticking.”

The eye-watering estimate - calculated by a former senior manager at the trust - includes all legal, staffing, HR, and costs awarded against the trust, together with nurses' salaries and associated costs.

They said: “Even on cautious assumptions, this single dispute represents the equivalent of a small ward’s nursing workforce for a year or more - a stark illustration of the cost of protracted litigation.”

A Band 5 nurse costs between £38,000 and £45,000 a year meaning the amount for which the trust could be liable is equal to around 33 nurse years of employment.

Last week the Express revealed the trust, which permitted the man to use female-only spaces under its controversial transitioning in the workplace policy, had been further humiliated after it was forced to settle with and issue a grovelling apology to Bethany Hutchison, Lisa Lockey, Karen Danson, Tracy Hooper, Annice Grundy, Carly Hoy and Jane Peveller - nurses who became known as the Magnificent Seven.

It came after the trust spent £603,000 defending its position of allowing biological men to use female changing rooms.

After being defeated at a tribunal the trust has promised to provide segregated changing, washing and sanitary units for biological men and biological women, and axed the very policy that sparked the legal battle.

Mother-of-two Mrs Hutchison, who led the legal victory, said: “We have done this, not just for ourselves, but for our colleagues who were too afraid or unable to speak up, and for every woman and girl in the country.

“We raised our concerns because we believed something was seriously wrong, not just for us, but for the protection of all women in the NHS. Instead of being listened to, we were ignored, labelled, and subjected to pressure and intimidation.

“This outcome is a vindication of our stand for dignity, privacy, and common sense. We hope it ensures that no woman is ever again made to feel unsafe in her workplace for speaking the truth.”

Their pursuit of justice was backed by Harry Potter author and women’s rights activist J.K. Rowling.

Meanwhile, in a separate development, the Care Quality Commission now ranks the trust as inadequately well-led.

The regulator served a warning notice in December over concerns about the trust’s governance systems, management of identified risk, and the processes for learning from incidents and complaints. Its decision to downgrade the trust, which employs more than 7,500 people, was only made public this month.

The continuing crisis comes as Andrew Thacker, the trust’s HR chief and man who defended its policy of allowing men into women’s changing rooms, had “decided to retire” after 37 years in the NHS to “focus on the next chapter of his life”.

He sparked anger during the tribunal when he was asked whether he felt it was reasonable for women to feel distress at having to undress in front of a man who had a physically larger build than them.

Mr Thacker said: "I could accept that if this was a man who didn't identify as a woman. The image you are trying to portray is there was a large-built man using the female changing room.”

The tribunal found the trust had unlawfully harassed and discriminated against the nurses by requiring them to share changing spaces with a man.

In its letter to the trailblazing nurses the trust said: “We recognise we have a responsibility to provide a safe, respectful and inclusive working environment for everyone and the tribunal’s findings make clear that we did not get this right for you, for which the trust expresses its sincere apologies.

“We also acknowledge that in our decision making, we did not adequately consider your concerns, formally or informally and we sincerely regret that we were unable to get this right.”

The trust separately told the Express it accepted and respected the judgment and had apologised directly to the women.

It said: "We have been transparent through the proceedings and have previously published information including legal costs through papers considered in public at trust board meetings. We will continue this approach.

"Following the judgment we issued updated guidance to colleagues confirming that single-sex changing facilities are provided and used on the basis of biological sex. Where practicable, we have also introduced additional single-occupancy changing facilities which can be used by any colleague.

"We recognise that our facilities can continue to be improved and remain committed to reviewing them. We are also ensuring that the learning from this case is reflected in our guidance, training and policies, while keeping national guidance under review.

“(Andrew Thacker) made the decision to retire some time ago following a long career in the NHS. His retirement is unrelated to these proceedings.”

Earlier this month the Express revealed that newly-appointed Health Secretary James Murray failed to honour a meeting with the nurses scheduled by his predecessor Wes Streeting, who had made a commitment to discuss concerns about safety, dignity, and the protection of women in the NHS.

That was part of wider efforts about frontline staff fears about the implementation of last year's landmark Supreme Court judgement which stated t hat sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex.

Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Following the ruling, and the clear guidance arising from it, NHS trusts should not be left to interpret the law differently from one another.

“The Health Secretary must now ensure the law is implemented consistently across every NHS trust in line with the judgment.

“Staff and patients should be able to expect the same protections wherever they are in the country. This is not simply a matter of policy preference; it is a matter of legal compliance, safeguarding, and maintaining public confidence in the NHS.”

When my colleagues and I first raised concerns about our changing room, we were asking for something basic: the right to undress at work in privacy and dignity. We were not asking for a legal battle, or years of stress that continues to put our careers on the line. Yet because common sense was ignored, taxpayers have been left with an appalling bill.

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust has paid £187,000 in damages after an employment tribunal found its policy amounted to unlawful discrimination.

On top of that, the trust has spent £603,000 and counting on its own legal costs, with our legal costs still to be decided.

That money should have gone to patients, wards and NHS staff.

It is outrageous that such a vast amount of public money has had to be spent on this case.

But what other message will get through to NHS managers who repeatedly ignored repeated warnings and the law and pressed ahead regardless? If common sense and basic fairness are dismissed, costly legal consequences may be the only language finally heard.

What makes this harder to accept is that the trust was warned.

A senior director of nursing privately described the situation as “entirely self-inflicted politically correct nonsense” and warned that management action should be taken rather than forcing female staff to find alternative changing arrangements. That warning was ignored. Days after an emergency meeting, his “retirement” was suddenly announced.

For over two years, nurses who simply wanted single-sex facilities were made to feel like the problem. We lost time, sleep and confidence, while public money was poured into defending the indefensible.

The trust has now apologised and agreed to provide separate changing, washing and toilet facilities for biological men and women. We welcome that.

But this case must be a wake-up call across the NHS: women’s privacy and safety are not optional extras.

Listening to nurses is not ‘bigotry’. When ideology trumps common sense, staff, patients and taxpayers pay the price.